Abstract

A series of studies has recently used emissions embodied in net imports (EENI) to argue for the consumption‐based accounting
(CBA) approach. These publications have been generating much attention from the media and academia for ‘providing an opportunity
to inform effective climate policy’. However, policymakers must be cautious when considering if CBA can be used to replace
or just to supplement current practice of production‐based accounting (PBA). Terms such as ‘carbon leakage’, ‘emissions transfers’,
and ‘CO2 outsourcing’ have been uncritically overused as there is little evidence that EENI is the result of climate policy. Furthermore,
CBA overlooks ‘insourcing’ of polluting industries by producing regions when blaming consumers for emissions. To avoid misinformation,
EENI should be called just that. CBA's practicality is limited as it involves more data‐intensive calculations and higher
transaction costs than PBA. The success of CBA will rely on consumers to put pressure on producers. Eventually, it is still
producers that need to reduce emissions. PBA is more practical by directly placing pressure on producers along with environmental
laws and regulations. CBA will be counter‐productive to global emissions control if producers increase emissions due to reduced
responsibility over the emissions incurred by the production of their exports. However, CBA could be used to persuade consumers
to choose low‐emissions products, support producers' sustainability efforts, and reduce nonbasic consumption. WIREs Clim Change 2015, 6:1–8. doi: 10.1002/wcc.325

CO2 emissions are being ‘outsourced’ by rich countries to rising economies. The Guardian, January 19, 2014. Available at: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jan/19/co2‐emissions‐outsourced‐rich‐nations‐rising‐economies.